Mobile Assisted Language Learning - (Elham Naseri)
Mobile Assisted Language Learning Description The use of Academic Podcasting Technology and MALL (Mobile Assisted Language Learning) is reshaping teaching and learning by supporting, expanding, and enhancing course content, learning activities, and teacher-student interactions. Introduction In August 2004, Duke University provided free iPods to its entire freshman class (Belanger, 2005). The next month, a Korean education firm offered free downloadable college entrance exam lectures to students who purchased an iRiver personal multimedia player (Kim, 2004). That October, a financial trading firm in Chicago was reportedly assessing the hand-eye coordination of traders’ using GameBoys(Logan, 2004). Yet while such innovative applications abound, the use of technology in education and training is far from new, a fact as true in language classrooms as it is in medical schools. Practically since their availability, a succession of audiovisual recording devices (e.g., reel-to-reel, VCRs, PCs) has been used to capture language samples, and myriad playback and broadcast devices (e.g., phonographs, radios, televisions) have provided access to authentic speech samples. The espousal of audiolingual theory in the 1950s brought the widespread use of the language laboratory in educational settings (Salaberry, 2001). Influenced by behaviorism, the lab was progressively replaced in the 1960s by drill-based computer-assisted instruction, which decades later was itself surpassed by a more intelligent, interactive and multimedia computer-assisted language learning. The popular acceptance of the Internet in the 1990s advanced the development of computer-mediated communications. As technologies continue to evolve, so does their propensity to shrink in size. "Other technologies that hold the capacity for language learning include PDAs, multimedia cellular phones, MP3 players, DVD players, and digital dictionaries" (Zhao, 2005). Such portable media—referred to in popular and scholarly literature as mobile, wireless, handheld or nomadic—are now social staples. Mobile learning, or m-learning, is a burgeoning subdivision of the e-learning movement, further evidenced by European initiatives such as m-learning and Mobilearn. In this paper, applied fusions of m-learning and language learning follow, after which their benefits and challenges are reviewed. MALL Applications As in other technology-enhanced language learning milieu, mobile learning environments might be face-to-face, distance, or online; further, they may be self-paced or calendar-based. Copaert (2004) emphasizes the importance of developing the language learning environment before deciding on the role of mobile technologies and further emphasizes focusing on the learner ahead of the technology. Salaberry (2001) also argues against "technology-driven pedagogy," suggesting that despite their revolutionary status, it is not clear that any modern technology (e.g., television, radio, the PC) has offered the same pedagogical benefits as traditional second language instruction. Beatty (2003) offers a further caveat that "teachers need to be concerned about investing time and money in unproven technology". Stipulations aside, technologies, mobile or otherwise, can be instrumental in language instruction. Ultimately, though, they are not in and of themselves instructors; rather, they are instructional tools. And the effective use of any tool in language learning requires the thoughtful application of second language pedagogy. Imaginative examples of such applications—using cell phones, personal digital assistants, and portable digital audio players—are illustrated next. Cell Phones Since their inception, the dimensions of cell phones have waned as much as their abilities have waxed. Common features of these devices now include Internet access, voice-messaging, SMS text-messaging, cameras, and even video-recording. In language learning, all of these features enable communicative language practice, access to authentic content, and task completion. Though research of such uses is scarce, it is not non-existent. The use of telephones in distance language learning is not unique to m-learning. Twarog and Pereszlenyi-Pinter (1988) used telephones to provide distant language learners with feedback and assistance. In 1996, instructors at Brigham Young University-Hawaii taught a distance-learning English course from Hawaii to Tonga via telephone and computer (Green, Collier, & Evans, 2001). And Dickey (2001) utilized teleconferencing to teach an English conversation course in South Korea. One of the first projects using mobile phones in language learning was developed by the Stanford Learning Lab. (Brown, 2001). Specifically, they developed Spanish study programs utilizing both voice and email with mobile phones. These programs included vocabulary practice, quizzes, word and phrase translations, and access to live talking tutors. Their results indicated that mobile phones were effective for quiz delivery if delivered in small chunks; they also indicated that automated voice vocabulary lessons and quizzes had great potential. Their tiny screen sizes were deemed "unsuitable for learning new content but effective for review and practice" (Thornton & Houser, 2002). Live tutoring was also effective, but poor audio quality was judged to potentially affect comprehension adversely Thornton and Houser (2002; 2003; 2005) also developed several innovative projects using mobile phones to teach English at a Japanese university. One focused on providing vocabulary instruction by SMS. Three times a day, they emailed short mini-lessons to students, sent in discrete chunks so as to be easily readable on the tiny screens. Lessons defined five words per week, recycled previous vocabulary, and used the words in various contexts, including episodic stories. Students were tested biweekly and compared to groups that received identical lessons via the Web and on paper. The authors then explored usability and learning issues. The results indicated that the SMS students learned over twice the number of vocabulary words as the Web students, and that SMS students improved their scores by nearly twice as much as students who had received their lessons on paper. Students’ attitudes were also measured. The vast majority preferred the SMS instruction, wished to continue such lessons, and believed it to be a valuable teaching method. The authors theorized that their lessons had been effective due to their having been delivered as push media, which promote frequent rehearsal and spaced study, and utilized recycled vocabulary. Levy and Kennedy (2005) created a similar program for Italian learners in Australia, sending vocabulary words and idioms, definitions, and example sentences via SMS in a spaced and scheduled pattern of delivery, and requesting feedback in the form of quizzes and follow up questions. Another program by Thornton and Houser (2003) utilized a classroom polling system, EduCALL (inspired byEduClick), to survey students during class in order to determine vocabulary retention. Poll questions were projected, students used their cell phones to surf to the polling software and make their selections, and the tabulations were projected as bar graphs. In this way, students and teachers alike received immediate feedback. Kiernan and Aizawa (2004) set out to study whether or not mobile phones were useful language learning tools and to explore their use in task-based learning. They argued that second language acquisition is best promoted through the utilization of tasks, which require learners to close some sort of gap, thereby focusing the learner on meaning. In the traditional classroom, however, such activities are easily defeated by the close proximity of students. The use of mobile technologies would be one way to separate learners. In their study, upper and lower level Japanese university students were placed into three groups: PC email users, mobile phone email users, and mobile phone speaking users (due to cost, this latter group became face-to-face speaking users). Then they were given a pre-test, three narrative tasks, three invitation tasks, and a repeated post-test. While all the face-to-face speaking users completed these tasks in the time provided, only two pairs of PC email users and one pair of mobile phone email users completed the tasks. The face-to-face speaking users had significantly faster performances, and the mobile phone email users had the slowest; however, the latter were not significantly slower than the PC email users. These differences were attributed to relative speed of typing versus speaking, and the relative speed of typing on mobile thumb pads versus keyboards. An interesting side-note was that the fastest mobile phone email user had told the entire story in only a single text-message. In general, fewer words were used by mobile phone email users, yet they were able to communicate effectively. While the upper-level students' performance improved significantly on the post-test, this was likely due to a change in the post-test format for this group (since the pre-test required written translations, but the post–test consisted of multiple choice questions). Several other free and commercial mobile language learning programs have recently become available: theBBC World Service’s Learning English section offers English lessons via SMS in Francophone West Africa and China (Godwin-Jones, 2005); BBC Wales has similarly offered Welsh lessons since 2003 (Andrews, 2003); and an EU-funded initiative known simply as 'm-learning' provides English lessons directed towards non-English speaking young adults. The goal of such programs is to engage new kinds of learners (e.g., young, disabled) in a time and place of their preference (Godwin-Jones, 2005; Kadyte, 2004; Kukulska-Hulme, 2005). Norbrook and Scott (2003) suggest that portability and immediacy, rather than localization, are the essential motivating factors in mobile language learning. Further, lessons are provided in bite-sized format, a fact appealing to busy students (McNicol, 2004). Lessons are typically delivered several times a week or even daily, include translations, and provide options for further context-based applications. One of the newest technologies with potential application in language learning is moblogging, an amalgam of mobile and weblogging. Mielo (2005) further defines moblogging as using a cell phone or PDA "in the field" to post words and/or pictures to a web site .Blogs themselves are a recent trend in language teaching. They provide opportunities for language creation (i.e., journaling) and collaborative activities. Moblogs offer the potential to expound these benefits by removing time and place boundaries and adding authentic and personal visual content. While the applications of cell phones have typically been pedagogic in nature, they have also been used for practical or administrative matters, such as simplified and flexible student-teacher communications (e.g., course updates and reminders) and referrals to related web sites and other up-to-date instructional resources (Dias, 2002, Summer/Fall; Levy & Kennedy, 2005).